What is ur definition of gay?
Can gays be classified?
How many types of gays r there?
What's their differences?
These thoughts make me feel confused for years. I believe I'm a gay coz I love men. But I don't like crossdressing. I like to live as a man. I don't want to be a girl. I wanna be a man and love men. So, I think I'm gay. But I found the other gays, want to be like girls and some even perform sex change operation. I don't know why. Whenever I see some men acting so reliable and so kind and try too much to protect their precious something, I love that, whether he's ugly or handsome. So, I doubt that I love men or man's behaviours and nature. I'm so confused. So help me how gay is definied? I don't know what they call love can be found only between two different sexes? Is it love or sexual desire? So can't love be exist between same sex?
when your gay you are a guy who likes others guys but if your a girl who likes girls your lesbians and if you are a girl who likes men your strait and if you a guy who likes girls your strait
I tend to think of Gay in the most commonly accepted sense: people attracted to members of the same sex. This encompasses both emotional attraction (love) and sexual attraction, or both.
The various types of gays do not change the basic definition. Be they transsexual, transgender, bi-sexual, if they are attracted to the same sex, they are gay.
That’s my take on it.
Thank you. I think so. How about me? What am I attracted to, behavioural pattern or sex?
What you are and how you feel are not for me to decide. That is up to you and how you personally feel. You are asking the right questions and I have no doubt you will figure it all out.
Straight-male bonding did not start with video games, football and debates on baseball trivia. Modern man inherited survival strategies from his ancient grandfathers by natural selection and survival of the fittest, perpetuating both behavioral and physical functions of our species. Genes of those individuals who successfully reproduce and survive to reproductive age will pass on behaviors and appearance to the largest number of progeny. So, how do we explain male bonding in which truly straight guys watch porn together, slap each others asses on the football field and want a “night out with the boys”? Why are fraternities plagued with hazing practices, usually sexual in some way, supposedly ensuring lifelong brotherhood, insisting it is to “weed out” those who are not permitted into their clan? Why was this behavior successfully passed down to modern man? Is there pleasure in this behavior? Of course, but it does not obviously seem sexual to straight men. Straight men WILL absolutely deny any accusation of a sexual connection or feeling in their need to have close male buddies usually due to social stigma. Nonetheless, it is tribalism, a bonding similar in many ways to Bonobo apes, the closest extant relative to humans.
Let’s look back to the earliest man. What criterions lead him to his best possible female reproductive mate? Healthy is sexy, smart is sexy, strong is sexy, getting attention and respect is sexy. These qualities are just a few that will give a man’s genes a better chance of being passed on. So why does a man tend to use the same criterions in choosing members of his man tribe? Because in ancient society a man’s clan worked together as an extended family, hunting, gathering and passing on knowledge. In one or two generations, his buddy’s genes will most likely be in the same gene pool as his own. So clearly, early man’s selection of male and female bonds is a choice for which genes to be mixed with his own. Early man lived in fairly small groups making his children very likely to mate with the offspring of close male comrades. So in effect, the rules for picking his female mates, traits considered sexy, are consistent with those of picking his best buddies. Undesirable traits, considered non-sexy, like sickliness, weakness, ignorance or disrespect are the same attributes to avoid for choosing both females for reproducing and males for tribal bonding. Both male bonding and female bonds are investments in ones genetic future, following the same rules of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
Early human awareness progressed using trial and error explanations of the laws of nature with many wrong paths of logic. But such is all science. What is considered truth one day may be laughable the next. The world IS round whether early man knew this or not. Cultural institutions such as religion or “right or wrong” philosophy began changing human society. Animal instincts were no longer unchecked. Genetically, humans remain instinctually wired by natural selection and survival of the fittest strategies. Eventually the concept of “morality” was coined by man, steeped in range of negative attitudes, antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, discrimination, violence and irrational fear. But, under the accepted cloak of “Male Bonding”, modern male egos had a loophole, allowing instinctive behaviors a veiled venue for innate emotional expressions.
In cultures where family groups shrank, no longer including extended family members and non-related male bonds, great pressure was placed on men to reproduce. Because of this pressure, homosexuality and straight male bonding, by many cultures was condemned. Likewise, women who were barren could be stoned to death in some cultures. As the frequency of tribal cultures and clans subsided, male bonding found socially acceptable venues in sports and evenings out with the guys. Moral laws, contrary to human natural instincts, became dominant, forcing openly bonding males, straight or gay, into denial or secrecy. The threat of being burned at the stake can reprioritize anyone’s behavior for immediate survival.
For those who use “God” in their defense of their bigotry, we must remember that whatever force created mankind also created all other life on this planet. Traditionally, humans have not always been in “one man, one woman” groupings. In many traditional societies today tribalism and extended families still are the domestic norm, which include bonded male members. Other earthly life forms such as in bee and ant colonies, function as a single organism, having many specialized individuals. They would not survive in a “one male, one female” grouping. Humankind seems to have a similar but more complex society, needing many specialized individuals such as artists, farmers, solders, mothers, grandparents and bonded straight men. Ants may all look the same to the naked human eye but each lives a specialized life, spending their entire life only tending the queen or only gathering nectar and pollen, caring for the eggs or many other essential needs of the colony. Why would nature or a God have such a separate set of rules for two forms of life? Maybe we are more the same than we think when it comes to gender and social roles. Maybe there are many actual “genders” or social rolls in mankind. How would our world be different if persons such as Jim Henson, Sappho, Alexander the Great, Joan of Arc, Michelangelo, Paul the Apostle, Richard the Lionhearted, Leonardo da Vinci, George Fridric Handel, Tchaikovsky, Florence Nightingale, Gertrude Stein and Lawrence of Arabia never existed? Even Abraham Lincoln “bachelored” for a long time, sharing another man’s bed. Whether these persons are straight or homosexual, they all seem to be wired for things more complex than just being breeders. How do we each fit into human society as a whole? Maybe what makes us more than being just another animal on this planet are the poets, artists, medicine men, storytellers, the humanitarians, writers, comedians and heroes.
I am not suggesting immorality as the solution for correcting this injustice. I am suggesting a non moral or amoral solution. Drop the homophobia and let men be men, have their male buddies and be who they are programmed to be, human.
Not too sure if I'd call intimacy or attraction between a heterosexual person and a transgender person as homosexuality.